Silva (or anybody, please anybody, else), have you tried playing this yet?

I'll describe it for you lazy assholes: There are three teams.

One team has a briefcase and a disk. They're trying to trade it for cash.

One team has a briefcase full of cash. They want the disk.

The third team doesn't have anything to trade, but they want both.

All three teams get guns and cars - it is your job to find out which teams have what, where you're going to meet them to actually do the trade, and how not to get totally fucked by the other teams. The only team indicator is color of tie, so you have to be really goddamn close to actually see who is who, and by that point they're probably already going to be shooting at you.

First of all, I should smack you for being lulled into thinking "good graphics = good time." Some of the best games only have a deck of cards for graphics.

Second, the graphics actually add a lot to the game - namely the absolute soullessness of everything. Every player is completely indistinguishable from every other one. The cases can't be inspected unless you're reaaaaally close. Very few ques means that more alarms go off in your head when you see someone on the other time actually holding their gun, instead of having it put away. Trust me, it's worth trying out.

I think graphics can 100% make an experience retroactively worse, or at least act as a barrier to entry- i love roguelikes, which often have terrible graphics or none at all, but I play them with tiles :/

I just can't feel immersed as a cube with a tie drawn on it, you know? Even something like half-life2 ish player models would be sufficient.

Keldoclock wrote:I think graphics can 100% make an experience retroactively worse, or at least act as a barrier to entry- i love roguelikes, which often have terrible graphics or none at all, but I play them with tiles :/

I just can't feel immersed as a cube with a tie drawn on it, you know? Even something like half-life2 ish player models would be sufficient.

I have to agree. unless the graphics are good looking with what they do, (minecraft is easy to run, and it looks great) but when a game looks like shit there isn't an excuse.

Keldoclock wrote:I think graphics can 100% make an experience retroactively worse, or at least act as a barrier to entry- i love roguelikes, which often have terrible graphics or none at all, but I play them with tiles :/

I just can't feel immersed as a cube with a tie drawn on it, you know? Even something like half-life2 ish player models would be sufficient.

I have to agree. unless the graphics are good looking with what they do, (minecraft is easy to run, and it looks great) but when a game looks like shit there isn't an excuse.

I-....I started writing a really long response to this, but I'll just say...games are art. Most games are art.

Your comparison is illogical. One does not compare Andy Warhol to Leonardo da Vinci...their works are separate entities from which different meaning is derived.

This comparison of games like cattle is purely consumerism. You're slapping one piece of meat down next to another and saying the one is better for eating, but you do not consume games; you experience them.

Silverdream wrote:Exactly, Slender looks like shit but it's still fun to play and scary as shit.

I didn't enjoy Slender at all, it just seemed kind of arbitrary and un-fun.

@Nw there is a pretty big difference between some guy slapping a bunch of squares onto a canvas and Picasso as well. Sub Rosa's graphics look to be they way they are because they were programmer art slapped on to get the game done in seven days, not a deliberate stylistic choice.

Silverdream wrote:Exactly, Slender looks like shit but it's still fun to play and scary as shit.

I didn't enjoy Slender at all, it just seemed kind of arbitrary and un-fun.

@Nw there is a pretty big difference between some guy slapping a bunch of squares onto a canvas and Picasso as well. Sub Rosa's graphics look to be they way they are because they were programmer art slapped on to get the game done in seven days, not a deliberate stylistic choice.

Yeaah, but the funny thing about this games business is what you just pointed out: The artistry is not purely aesthetic. The programmer puts him self in the game. The graphics being shit don't detract from the game because graphics are, simply put, a smaller piece of the puzzle. Your criticism of the game based upon its graphiccs is a refusal to take in the whole work of art.

Also, those squares on canvas can be worth just as much if not more than a painting of similar style as Picaso's from the same era. It is about the meaning, which is a part of the whole work. Art goes deeper than the aesthetics.

Why are you comparing a game to a painting? The sole purpose of a painting is to be looked at, so anything that contributes to its appearance is there for a reason. Yes, a game is meant to be an experience, so it goes without saying that the experience can be much less enjoyable if there is little effort put into the appearance.

Why don't we compare it to a movie? Movies are an experience, as well. Sure, not the exact same kind, but it's a hell of a lot more similar to a game than a painting is.

If a movie looked like absolute garbage, would a good story, good acting and good music make up for the terrible cinematography?

I personally think that the answer is no, because then it had might as well be on the radio. The same applies to games. If you're not going to put any effort into making it look good, why bother giving it graphics in the first place? Just make it a top-down game.

I just looked at screenshots, and I'm Keldoclock on this one. This game looks like a bad shooting game on a games site.

aoffan23 wrote:Why are you comparing a game to a painting? The sole purpose of a painting is to be looked at, so anything that contributes to its appearance is there for a reason. Yes, a game is meant to be an experience, so it goes without saying that the experience can be much less enjoyable if there is little effort put into the appearance.

Why don't we compare it to a movie? Movies are an experience, as well. Sure, not the exact same kind, but it's a hell of a lot more similar to a game than a painting is.

If a movie looked like absolute garbage, would a good story, good acting and good music make up for the terrible cinematography?

I personally think that the answer is no, because then it had might as well be on the radio. The same applies to games. If you're not going to put any effort into making it look good, why bother giving it graphics in the first place? Just make it a top-down game.

I just looked at screenshots, and I'm Keldoclock on this one. This game looks like a bad shooting game on a games site.

thank you dr zoidberg (hands fish). but seriously, it seems any game with bad graphics gets leeway these days, because people are too afraid to look like a COD fanboy.